저자: PeterSchiff · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 인플레이션과 달러 기축통화 지위 약화로 미국 자산 대신 해외 실물 기반 기업과 금·은 관련 채굴주를 선호해야 한다는 주장. 인플레이션과 부채 구조: 인플레이션은 채권자에서 채무자로 부의 대규모 이전을 일으키며, 정부 개입으로 인위적으로 낮아진 금리 때문에 차입이 과도하게 싸다는 논리. 다만 차입금을 실물 생산자산에 투자해야 이득이 된다고 강조. 투자 선호: 배당을 지급하고 원가 상승분을 가격에 転嫁할 수 있는, 현재 이익을 내는 기업을 선호. 미래 기대치(파이프 투 더 스카이 추정)에 의존하는 기업은 회피. 자산 측면에서는 상업용·산업용 부동산 신탁 보유 사례 언급. 금·은 및 비트코인: 금과 은이 저평가되어 있으며 인플레이션 헤지로서 자금이 회귀할 것으로 전망. 비트코인 등 암호화폐의 장기 지속력은 과대평가되어 있다고 평가. 금·은 채굴주가 금속 가격 상승률을 크게 상회할 레버리지 수단이라고 주장. 지역 분산: 미국은 기축통화 특권 상실 위험과 정치적 리스크로 자산 보유를 피하고, 아시아(동남아 포함), 유럽, 남미, 호주·뉴질랜드에 분산 투자 중이라고 밝힘. 어느 나라도 완벽하지 않다는 전제 하에 선진국 중 미국을 취약하다고 평가. 미국 구조적 취약성: 1970년대 세계 최대 채권국에서 최대 채무국으로 전락했으며, 무역흑자에서 무역적자로 전환. 1970년대 이후 맞벌이 증가, 저축률 하락, 가계부채 확대가 생활수준 저하를 가리고 있다고 진단. 경고 시점: 부채 위기 경고가 수십 년간 반복되며 무시되는 상황이지만, 현재 신호가 누적되어 있어 이번 10년 내 무언가 일어날 것이라고 전망. 다만 시기는 후반보다는 전반일 가능성을 언급. 대상 자산 방향 발언: 금·은 및 금속 채굴주 상승 전망(인플레 헤지 수요 회귀), 비트코인은 장기 지속력 과대평가(부정적), 미국 자산은 정치·기축통화 리스크로 회피 권고. 1~3개월 단기 가격 방향에 대한 명시적 언급은 없음. 금리·환율·지수에 대한 구체적 방향 발언은 확인되지 않음.
다듬은 글
again, I think being a debtor can make you a big winner through inflation if you put the borrowed money to the right use. Inflation is a massive transfer of wealth from creditors to debtors, especially when inflation isn't accurately reflected in the interest rate you're borrowing at. If lenders understood how much inflation was coming, they would build it into the rate and you'd pay a higher premium. Clearly, though, inflation premiums are not in today's interest rates.
A lot of that has to do with government intervention. Government has mispriced credit, so borrowing money is much cheaper than it would be in a free market. Whenever a government makes something artificially cheap, you get more of it. You want to take on more debt, because you're not paying a real market price for it. But if you just borrow a pile of money, take a vacation, and buy clothes and consumer electronics, you'll have nothing to show for the borrowed money. If you use it to accumulate real assets, especially income-producing ones, it's a home run for your net worth.
That's why I like to buy income-producing assets in countries with much sounder economic fundamentals. That's why I'm not buying in the US. I'm buying stocks outside the US. I'm also trying to buy companies that hold real value: not just natural resources, but man-made assets like plant and equipment, and companies that generate earnings today rather than ones built on pie-in-the-sky estimates. Maybe we'll make money in the future, but right now we're losing a ton of money. I want companies that are making money now, paying dividends now, and able to raise their prices along with their costs and return that to me as a shareholder.
I think gold and silver are underpriced because people are underestimating how bad inflation is going to be. A lot of people have made the false assumption that even if there's a lot of inflation, people will just buy bitcoin instead of gold. I think that's completely wrong. I think people are overestimating the long-term staying power of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Looking beyond that bubble, a lot of money is going to move back into real assets and a real inflation hedge. The bigger leverage will be in the mining stocks, because those stocks will rise a lot relative to the increase in the price of gold and silver.
When you say you're looking at real estate in countries with sounder fundamentals, which countries top that list?
Not just real estate. I'm not buying property directly; I'm buying companies. Some of the companies I own are property trusts that own commercial or industrial property. I'm not really into residential property per se. It's more businesses I want to own than being a landlord. That's still a business, collecting rent, and I do have those kinds of stocks. But I'm invested in Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, a pretty good diversified mix. No country is perfect, but among the developed countries, the US is in a uniquely vulnerable position as the issuer of the world's reserve currency. We've enjoyed this exorbitant privilege, and losing it will have profound implications that other nations won't have to deal with, because they never had the privilege to begin with. Their economies were never reshaped around exercising it.
When you've built an economy around a certain set of dynamics and then you don't have them anymore, that's a problem. America built an economy where we all spend money, we all borrow money, we don't have to produce much, and we just print money to buy whatever we want. We've been doing that for a long time, and when we can't do it anymore, it's going to be a huge problem in the United States. How we react politically, given the mood of the electorate and how they view things, is very, very dangerous. So assets in the United States, and the value of our assets relative to overseas assets, are very, very risky politically.
These problems have been building for decades, not years. Plenty of people read the writing on the wall back in the '60s and '70s and warned about where we were headed, and they were right. It's just taking a lot longer to get there than they imagined. Because the warnings have gone on so long without dire consequences, they're now dismissed. Look at America in 1970 compared with today. Back then, even in 1980, America was the world's wealthiest creditor nation. Now we're the biggest debtor nation. We've gone from extreme assets to extreme liabilities. We used to run the world's biggest trade surpluses; now we run the biggest trade deficits. We've gone from a position of strength to a position of weakness in global trade. Trade surpluses and being a net creditor go hand in hand, because you become a creditor by investing your surpluses. We ran deficits and financed them by selling off our assets, so we went from way up here to way down there.
In 1970, very few married women worked, because their husbands earned enough to support them. Now almost all married women work, by necessity, not by choice. It's not that they're liberated; they could choose not to work before. Now they're kind of forced to work because their husbands can't support them the way they could in 1970. The fact that you now need two people to support a family, rather than one, represents a significant decline in living standards. People also have smaller families today than they did then, not by choice but because they can't afford to support kids the way they could back then.
In 1970, the average American was much better prepared for retirement. They had far more retirement savings. Today people have no savings; in fact, they're loaded up with debt. Back then, a lot more people owned their homes free and clear, and most people didn't have a car loan. They had cars, but they didn't have loans on them. Now people take out loans on their cars. We have a much weaker economy, and we've maintained the trappings of wealth by going into debt and sending our women into the workforce. Many of these things happened because if women hadn't gone to work, we probably would have had a crisis long ago. If women had tried to stay home, the whole thing would have imploded, or if we couldn't keep borrowing and going deeper into debt.
One reason this was even possible is countries like China, which were willing to make all the stuff we didn't and trade it for all the money we printed. The dollar's reserve currency status enabled this, because without it we couldn't have run these trade deficits, and we would have had an economic collapse decades ago. Many things people didn't consider in 1970 couldn't have been foreseen. They didn't have a crystal ball. They didn't know women would go to work, or that all these new ways of borrowing money would be invented so we could keep kicking the can down the road. They probably didn't imagine China would become our biggest supplier and biggest lender, or that we'd be able to borrow all this money. Or even Japan. Japan was nothing in 1970. Many things happened that let us delay the day of reckoning, but now people think that day will never come, because it's eluded us for so long. Clearly, though, there are many signs that we're close.
I seriously doubt another 50 years will go by with people saying, "Peter Schiff was saying that 50 years ago, and look, everything is fine. We have a $100 trillion debt, what's the problem?" I don't think we'll get to that point. And if it went on another 50 years, the debt wouldn't be $100 trillion. It'd be what comes after a trillion, a quadrillion, whatever it is, some huge number. But it's obviously not going to get there. Something is going to happen in this decade, probably in the earlier part, not the end.
댓글 0